SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!

Not a member? Sign-up

Forgot your password?


PetSmart

1-800-PetMeds

TigerDirect

HOME > PUBLICATIONS > Exclusive: Is Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson Polishing Obama’s Cowboy Boots?

  • IN THIS SECTION

Senior Intelligence Officials: Attempted Terror Attack "Certain"

The five senior leaders of the U.S. intelligence community told a Senate panel they are "certain" that terrorists will attempt another attack on the United States in the next three to six months.
If true, why do you think the jihadists feel emboldened?






View results




April 16, 2009

Exclusive: Is Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson Polishing Obama’s Cowboy Boots?

Ben-Peter Terpstra

Is it just me, or is Rolling Stone for pasty white, middle-class, wannabes with too much time on their hands? Scary introduction alert: “Under Bush, the Interior Department was as lawless as the Wild West. But can the new secretary bring the wrongdoers to justice?”
  
My query: Is this an April Fools’ Day prank or an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)? Better get those “wrongdoers.” At any rate, if you’re literate, ignore the fact that the Wild West wasn’t so wild, and that Spaghetti Westerns, are, well, Spaghetti Westerns.
 
Speaking of which, here’s Rolling Stone’s BDS writer Tim Dickinson. Notice the conspiratorial/accusatory words he associates with the “wild” Bush White House years:
 
  • uncover
  • worst abuses committed
  • corruption that characterized the Bush years  
  • shocking
  • lasting damage
  • pervasive scandals
  • cronyism
  • lawless bureaucracy
  • powerful energy interests
  • officials secretly allowed oil companies to keep billions
  • opened up 26 million acres of federal land to oil and gas drilling
  • rewrote scientific reports to eliminate safeguards
  • snorted coke 
  • had sex with the very oil interests they were supposed to be regulating    
  • past misdeeds
  • wrongdoing
  • worst moves
  • mess
  • criminal behavior that extended to the highest levels
  • “anything goes” era 
  • clear evidence of fraud
  • massive bureaucratic f***-up 
  • corporate snowboarding trips
  • costly bite out of the revenue owed to taxpayers
  • “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity”
  • literally and figuratively in bed with the oil industry
  • one got so drunk at a ski resort that Shell had to put her up for the night
 
Wait a minute. What about the “kitten beating” allegations? Welcome to post-partisanship.
 
“For Tim Dickinson's complete report, check out the latest issue of Rolling Stone, on newsstands now,” shouts Rolling Stone’s online magazine, in bold print. 
 
There’s more?
 
Another characteristic of the shrill BDS evangelist is his (or her) penchant for Orwellian ethics. Left-wing Neville Chamberlain Nellie types, on the one hand, accused Bush’s supporters, from Tony Blair to John Howard, of being dark co-conspirators. But, how were they going to treat the “uncatchable” Saddam Hussein, the Middle East’s modern-day Hitler? Where were their workable therapeutic solutions?
 
To be perfectly blunt, Dickinson reminds me of Sheryl Crow, wearing her laughably pretentious War Is Not The Answer T-shirt. Her answer? Vote for Kerry, the former “war hero,” and then Obama? Beats me. Americans are still in Iraq, the current administration wants more troops in Afghanistan, and even Pakistan isn’t safe from Obambi’s “good” bombs.
 
The problem is not that America’s celebrities wear clichés; it is that they take them off for Democrats. Literally. It is one thing to ignore history (to whine about wars without offering workable solutions); it is another thing to lock up your pacifism for the Obama administration. You either believe in group-therapy for tyrants or you don’t.  
 
 
Why did Obama vote yes, in May, 2005, for an $82 billion pro-military bill to fund two wars? Why did Obama help Congress, in June, 2006, to clear a $94.5 billion pro-Iraq and pro-Afghanistan bill? Why did Obama vote yes to support a bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in September, 2006?
 
And if Obama didn’t bother to vote in December, 2007, to clear a $555 billion catchall spending bill that included millions for U.S. military interventions, how “progressive” is he? Most notably too, why did Obama approve of a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs in June, 2008? Thus, if Bush simply lied, and babies died, then Obama simply enabled, and toddlers are disabled, right?
 
Obviously. Yet, here are the happy-picture words, full-time brownnoser, Dickinson associates with Obambi (including):
 
 
Please, Dickinson, can I bow at Obama’s feet too?
 
If you do share Rolling Stone’s Malibu Marxist politics, then quit wasting time – and visit Obambi’s White House website now.
 
Granted, a dazed and confused Dickinson openly admits this much: “Obama’s seeking to spend more than Bush did in the 2009 budget. Yes, Gates is suggesting a slightly saner reallocation of resources. But the Defense budget is still bloated and growing larger.”
 
Stimulating. In newspaper print, the Bush administration appeared Orwellian, satanic even. In reality, it was wonderfully progressive (for millions of oppressed women). In print, Obama looks like Jesus – but then there’s that reality gap again. Independence, most definitely, isn’t Rolling Stone’s strong point.
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Ben-Peter Terpstra, an Australian-European satirist, is a contributor to a number of websites, from On Line Opinion (Australia's e-journal of social and political debate) to American Thinker. His pieces are also posted on his blog, Pizza Trays and Beer Bottles.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)

Print This
Share It: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit